DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 21 August 2026.
Clams 1, 9, and 15 are amended.
Claims 2, 10, and 16 are canceled.
Claim 21 is new and has been added.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-21 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 21 August 2026, has been considered. Initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 August 2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-21 now recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable if the claims were amended or re-written to overcome the current 101 rejection indicated in the Office Action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1 & 3-8 are directed to a product of manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable medium), claims 9 & 11-14 are directed to a method, and claims 15 & 17-21 are directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of providing a user responses related to beauty topics. Specifically, representative claim 9 recites the abstract idea of:
receiving user input provided by a user via a user presented at a client;
obtaining contextual information for the user input;
transmitting the user input and the contextual information for the user input, wherein the transmitting comprises appending the contextual information to the user input in a prompt provided as input, and wherein the appended contextual information acts as a constraint on a response to the user input;
requesting to provide the first classification of the user input;
receiving the first classification, wherein the first classification classifies the user input s a normal beauty topic request;
providing one or more additional prompts that define available categories of the normal beauty topic request;
responsive to the first classification, requesting to provide a second classification that assigns one of the available categories defined in the one or more additional prompts to the normal beauty topic request;
receiving the second classification;
based on the second classification requesting to provide a response to the user input to be presented to a user, wherein the response is based at least in part on the assigned category of the normal beauty topic request and the contextual information;
receiving the response; and
causing the response to be presented to the user.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 9 recites the abstract idea of providing a user responses related to beauty topics, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 9 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recites receiving user input by a user and presenting the input to a client, obtaining contextual information for the user input, transmitting the user input and the contextual information for the user input, wherein the transmitting comprises appending the contextual information to the user input in a prompt provided as input, and wherein the appended contextual information acts as a constraint on the response to the user input, requesting to provide a first classification of the user input, receiving the first classification that classifies the user input as a normal beauty topic request, providing prompts that define available categories of the normal beauty topic request, requesting to provide a second classification that assigns one of the available categories that are defined in the prompts to the normal beauty topic request, receiving the second classification, based on the second classification the requesting to provide the response to the input to be presented to the user, where the presenting is based on at least an assigned category of the normal beauty topic request, receiving the response, and causing the response to be presented to the user relating to the one or more beauty topics, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 9 includes additional elements: a computer system, user interface, client computing device, a large language model (LLM), to the LLM, by the LLM, the LLM , from the LLM, to the LLM, the LLM, from the LLM, and via the user interface.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 9 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing a user responses related to beauty topics) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). While the claims recite a large language model, the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the model is actually functioning beyond known functions. Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a computer system, user interface, client computing device, a large language model (LLM), to the LLM, by the LLM, the LLM , from the LLM, to the LLM, the LLM, from the LLM, and via the user interface recited in independent claim 9 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 9 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 9 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 9 is ineligible.
Independent claims 1 and 15 are similar in nature to representative claim 9 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 9. It is noted that in independent claim 1 includes the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions configured to, when executed by one or more computing devices of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations, and independent claim 15 includes the additional element of a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements recited in claims 1 and 15 as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 1 and 15 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 1 and 15 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 1 and 15, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 1 and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-8, 11-14, and 17-21 depending from claims 1, 9, and 15 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims and the representative claim 9. The claims of 3-8, 11-14, and 17-21 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of chat interface (claims 4, 11, & 18), interface element (claims 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 19, & 20), digital model (claims 5, 6, 12, & 19), a camera and digital (claims 6, 13, 19, & 21), vector database (claim 17), and a virtual try-on request (claim 21). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 4-8, 11-14, and 17-21 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 4-8, 11-14, and 17-21, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claim 3 does not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, claims 3-8, 11-14, and 17-21 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
responsive to the first classification, requesting the LLM to provide a second classification that assigns one of the available categories defined in the one or more additional prompts to the normal beauty topic request
The most apposite prior art of record includes Dissanayake, M. et al. (PGP No. US 2025/0166040 A1), in view of Petricek, V., et al. (Patent No. US 11,055,305 B1), Ozcan, A., et al. (PGP No. US 2022/0414741 A1), and Kim, M. (PGP No. US 2021/0279232 A1), to teach a method for providing product recommendations.
The reference of Dissanayake is directed to a method for providing personalized skin product recommendations where a user provides input to the system that receives the input using natural language data, including demographic information of the user, such as skin concerns, gender, age, ethnicity, etc. (Dissanayake, see: paragraphs [0050], [0078]). The reference further describes that the natural language model responding to the user input, may also generate a user-specific skin classification, such as skin health issues, skin appearance, etc., and a user-specific demographic classification, such as other information that can be used to define the user (Dissanayake, see: paragraphs [0050] and [0079]). The model then can generate recommendations based on the user specific information, such as a specific type of product to address a skin issue that has been identified (Dissanayake, paragraphs [0050] and [0082]). The generated recommendations are then provided to the user interface, including a conversation engine that provides the recommended products and the usage recommendations regarding the specific skin condition or issue, and how to prevent or avoid skin conditions in the future (Dissanayake, paragraphs [0084] and [0086]). Although Dissanayake provides the user input that is used to receive the generated product recommendations, Dissanayake does not disclose or describe the allowable features indicated above.
The reference of Petricek describes feature related to a chat bot that can provide suggestions to a user, where a user interface presents to a user the chat window, where the chat can be updated, such as updating the view of the window when the bot provides updated suggested additional filters to the user (Petricek, Col. 9, ln. 4-16, and 38-55), and refines the presentation of the recommended items (Petricek, Col. 9, ln. 38-44 and FIG. 2). Although Petricek teaches features related to appending context information to the user in a prompt provided as input, Petricek does not describe any of the allowable features as indicated above.
Further, the reference of Ozcan describes a question and answer model for a user, where the user may be asked questions that are related to skin issues, such as “Are you concerned with wrinkles?” (Ozcan paragraphs [0180] and [0182]). If the user answers specifically with a ‘YES’ to the question, the presentation of the label of “Wrinkles” is added to the user’s profile, and the conversation that is related to the topic is confirmed when the user is asked to confirm that a specific product is suitable for the requirements (Ozcan, see: paragraphs [0180]-[0182]). Although Ozcan describes the user confirming of a specific topic, Ozcan does not specifically describe any of the features that are allowable as indicated above.
Next, the reference of Kim describes a system for a chatbot that receives user input overtime and logs the details of chats with a user, where the chat details can include specific details and the topics of the conversations in order for the chatbot to learn a user’s preferences respond with the most relevant text for the user (Kim, see: [0064] and FIG. 4). Although describes features related to logging chatbot conversations with a user provide relevant responses, Kim does not describe any of the indicated allowable subject matter.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter, as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled We Asked ChatGPT for Skincare Advice, published on refinery29.com (2023), documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘We Asked’, describes an article related to a user that aimed to disprove a theory that a chatbot could outperform a human when it came to quality output in recommendations. The user approached the conclusion by using ChatGPT specifically for skin and beauty advice by inputting specific skin concerns and interests, and was provided with basic recommendations in return. Although ‘We Asked’ describes such features, the reference does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, does not describe any of the allowable features as indicated above.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 21 August 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 11 of the remarks stating “the amended claims include a technical improvement that improves the performance of the system,” and “the claims recite a specific technical improvement to known technical problems (e.g., hallucinations) in the technical field of machine learning,” and further “reduces the chance of hallucination in an LLM constitutes an improvement to a technical field that integrates any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, and even when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements that are recited are still recited at a high-level of generality and are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed additional elements, when considered individually and in combination are recited in a generic manner and are still being used to apply the abstract idea with generic computing components and a generic computer. Further, the claims do not reflect any type of improvement to the technology nor to the technical field. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. Although the claims include computer technology such as a computer system, user interface, client computing device, a large language model (LLM), to the LLM, by the LLM, the LLM , from the LLM, to the LLM, the LLM, from the LLM, and via the user interface, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of providing a user responses related to beauty topics. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improved responses provided to the user that are related to beauty topics, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve providing user responses related to beauty topics, e.g. commercial process. It is also noted that the instant claims are not similar to those discussed in Ex Parte Desjardins. In that decision, it was determined that the claims and specification did in fact support the disclosed improvement. It was determined that the specification supported the improvement to “effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks” and also provided support that “the claimed improvement allows artificial intelligence (AI) systems to ‘us[e] less of their storage capacity’ and enables ‘reduced system complexity’” such that when evaluating the claim language, the independent claim 1 reflected that improvement (see Ex Parte Desjardins et al Rehearing Decision). In this instant case, the additional elements are merely being used to apply the abstract idea with generically recited computing components. The improvements in the instant case are directed to providing improvements to the abstract idea, which is a commercial task. Therefore the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not reflect improvements to the technology nor to the technical field, and thus, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments filed on 21 August 2026, have been considered and are persuasive, and in light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claims recite allowable subject matter as indicated above, and thus, the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights